Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Chamundeswari Steel Rolling

Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Chamundeswari Steel Rolling

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Aug 04, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/18817

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/18817
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Aug 04, 2000
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Respondent

Chamundeswari Steel Rolling

Legal References

Reported In: (2001)(131)ELT171TriDel

Excerpt

.....have been received back from the postal authorities undelivered. in view of this, we heard shri ashok kumar, ld. jdr and perused the records. ld. dr submitted that it is not disputed by the respondents that they had purchased bazar scrap for manufacturing finished goods; that the additional collector had accepted their contention without any basis and without any document in support of their contention that the bazar scrap was in the form of bars, rods, angles, etc. he further mentioned that the issue has been settled by the tribunal in a number of decisions. he referred specifically to the decision in the case of poona rolling mills v. cce [1998 (97) e.l.t. 475] wherein it was held that inputs being scrap purchased from market are not covered by column (2) of the table annexed to notfn. no. 208/83-c.e.3. we have considered the submissions of the ld. dr and perused the records. notfn. no. 208/83 exempts final products from payment of duty subject to the condition that the goods are manufactured out of inputs specified in the table annexed to the notification. waste and scrap of iron and steel falls under heading 7204 of the schedule to the central excise tariff which is not mentioned in column (2) of the table annexed to the notification and as such the benefit of the exemption contained therein cannot be extended to the finished products. this was the view taken by the tribunal in the poona rolling mills case (supra). we also do not agree with the findings of the collector (appeals) that extended period of limitation as provided under section 11a of the central excise act is not invokable inasmuch as the respondents never mentioned in their classification list while claiming the exemption that the final products would be manufactured out of waste and scrap. if they were using waste and scrap, they had not complied with the condition specified in the notification and the fact of using such inputs was suppressed from the department.4. we therefore set aside the.....

Full Judgment

1. The issue involved in this appeal preferred by Revenue is whether the exemption under Notfn. No. 208/83-C.E., dated 1-8-1983 is available to the finished products made out of waste and scrap purchased from the market.

2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the Respondents, M/s. Chamundeswari Steel Rolling Mills. In fact all the notices issued to them for hearing have been received back from the postal authorities undelivered. In view of this, we heard Shri Ashok Kumar, ld. JDR and perused the records. Ld. DR submitted that it is not disputed by the Respondents that they had purchased Bazar scrap for manufacturing finished goods; that the Additional Collector had accepted their contention without any basis and without any document in support of their contention that the Bazar scrap was in the form of bars, rods, angles, etc. He further mentioned that the issue has been settled by the Tribunal in a number of decisions. He referred specifically to the decision in the case of Poona Rolling Mills v. CCE [1998 (97) E.L.T. 475] wherein it was held that inputs being scrap purchased from market are not covered by Column (2) of the Table annexed to Notfn. No. 208/83-C.E.3. We have considered the submissions of the ld. DR and perused the records. Notfn. No. 208/83 exempts final products from payment of duty subject to the condition that the goods are manufactured out of inputs specified in the Table annexed to the notification. Waste and scrap of iron and steel falls under Heading 7204 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff which is not mentioned in Column (2) of the Table annexed to the notification and as such the benefit of the exemption contained therein cannot be extended to the finished products. This was the view taken by the Tribunal in the Poona Rolling Mills case (supra). We also do not agree with the findings of the Collector (Appeals) that extended period of limitation as provided under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is not invokable inasmuch as the Respondents never mentioned in their classification list while claiming the exemption that the final products would be manufactured out of waste and scrap. If they were using waste and scrap, they had not complied with the condition specified in the notification and the fact of using such inputs was suppressed from the Department.

4. We therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by the Revenue.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Chamundeswari Steel Rolling Same Subject Service Tax